Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
A throwaway comment up thread that Farage will be campaigning. Where is he?
Farage won't campaign until he has some evidence that Reform have a good chance. He doesn't want to risk being associated with a second by-election defeat in a row, so he has to wait until he knows the lie of the land first.
No. This same bullshit was said about Farage in Gorton and Denton too, but they campaigned for every vote. Reform will scrap for every vote, as they always do.
Farage disappeared at the end of the campaign when they realised they were going to lose.
He's very happy for the rest of the party to campaign hard and spend lots of other people's money doing so.
No he didn't. Everyone here was bumping their gums about how Farage had given up and was doing something down south instead, and then he went to the constituency that very day and campaigned hard, as did the rest of the Reform front bench team all through the campaign.
AI says this:
Yes, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage visited Gorton and Denton multiple times during the campaign for the by-election held on February 26, 2026.
Key details of his involvement include:
Campaign Visits: Farage made public campaign appearances in the constituency, including opening the party's campaign headquarters in Denton on February 5, 2026, and visiting ahead of the vote to rally support for candidate Matt Goodwin.
You are posting lazy Farage-bad nonsense pulled from your imagination - ironical that you are doing so whilst trying to portray Farage as a lazy, glory-seeking campaigner.
He was on a freebie to the Maldives paid for by his crypto-bro mate the critical weekend before the by election.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
I think it's nice that Britain doesn't dominate it. Our music industry is famous all over the world and it's the only time of year that a band from Bulgaria gets some international acclaim.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s over arching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
There's some real British exceptionalism here. We have won Eurovision multiple times, and as recently as 2022 placed top in the Jury vote and only came second because of the massive support for Ukraine in the public vote.
If we want to win, or at least put on a stronger showing, then bringing back the "Song for Europe" selection process with a public vote is the way to do it.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
Probably because if you’re Ed Sheeran or Dua Lipa what’s in it for you? If you win everyone says “well of course they did they’re Ed Sheeran/Dua Lipa it’s like turning up to Agincourt with an A10 Warthog”. But chances are that you’ll end up fifth behind three Moldovan grannies throat singing, a trans thrash metal band from Latvia, and two blokes from Malta on pogos singing three blind mice in Maltese, and that won’t do your reputation much good for selling concert tickets to Wembley or advertising coffee. So you may as well avoid it and carry on being Ed Sheeran or Dua Lipa and raking it in.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
Probably because if you’re Ed Sheeran or Dua Lipa what’s in it for you? If you win everyone says “well of course they did they’re Ed Sheeran/Dua Lipa it’s like turning up to Agincourt with an A10 Warthog”. But chances are that you’ll end up fifth behind three Moldovan grannies throat singing, a trans thrash metal band from Latvia, and two blokes from Malta on pogos singing three blind mice in Maltese, and that won’t do your reputation much good for selling concert tickets to Wembley or advertising coffee. So you may as well avoid it and carry on being Ed Sheeran or Dua Lipa and raking it in.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
There's nothing unique to Brexit about that patten.
If they had voted Remain their lives would still have been shit and if they vote for Rejoin their lives will be shit.
Similarly vote for Corbyn then Boris then Starmer then Burnham then Farage then Polanski and their lives will still be shit.
Ditto similar patterns in similar countries.
On the other side of the coin there are many millions who have done well.
Is that because of Brexit ? Or Boris or Starmer ? Or Biden or Trump ? Or their own brilliance ?
Or is it mostly luck ?
With people sometimes having the skillset and effort to make the most of some (but by no means all) of the opportunities that come their way.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Trouble is that there were an awful lot of easy wins after 1945. Repairing war damage, for a start. Then the postwar baby boom moving through the workplace and, in the UK's case, North Sea oil and gas.
Trying to get the same growth without those boosts is much harder. Maybe smarter regulation could help, but I'd like to see why those regulations were put there first. Connectivity, sure. That'll be something we've failed to do for decades. Partly because of the upfront cost, but also because our provincial towns don't want to acknowledge their subservience to the nearest big city. And as for teleworking... don't even go there.
Whatever we do from here is going to need more effort. Are we up for that?
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
Established UK artists don't want Eurovision. It's not a part of their appeal.
Contemporary UK artists with songs with over 1 billion listens on Spotify include:
- Ed Sheeran - Dua Lipa - Harry Styles - Coldplay - Lewis Capaldi - Adele - Sam Smith - Arctic Monkeys - Glass Animals - Bastille - Calvin Harris - Clean Bandit - The 1975 - Alt-J - Olivia Dean - Gorillaz
I'd be utterly amazed if you could convince any one of them to appear on Eurovision.
Even lower ranking (popularity-wise) artists with songs in the hundreds of millions would very likely reject the proposition.
And they're not wrong to. Our top performer in years (Sam Ryder) has his top song with a paltry 75 million listens. It's simply not worth the risk of being so publicly rejected.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
There's some real British exceptionalism here. We have won Eurovision multiple times, and as recently as 2022 placed top in the Jury vote and only came second because of the massive support for Ukraine in the public vote.
If we want to win, or at least put on a stronger showing, then bringing back the "Song for Europe" selection process with a public vote is the way to do it.
Alternatively MI6 sets up its own special hasbara unit to get every expat Brit and their grannies to fire in multiple votes for UK entries regardless of how shite it is. We could regularly be competing for second place.
I love this idea that we should be taking Eurovision more seriously. It's just a song contest that as far as I can see intentionally doesn't take itself that seriously. Can we not just send someone along each year, have a laugh and get involved with the campy fun and take our result with a smile whether it's first or last or anywhere in-between? Does there have to be an inquest every year?
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Trouble is that there were an awful lot of easy wins after 1945. Repairing war damage, for a start. Then the postwar baby boom moving through the workplace and, in the UK's case, North Sea oil and gas.
Trying to get the same growth without those boosts is much harder. Maybe smarter regulation could help, but I'd like to see why those regulations were put there first. Connectivity, sure. That'll be something we've failed to do for decades. Partly because of the upfront cost, but also because our provincial towns don't want to acknowledge their subservience to the nearest big city. And as for teleworking... don't even go there.
Whatever we do from here is going to need more effort. Are we up for that?
Yes are we up for it? I’d yearn for a politician who actually says there’s no more easy money and it’s not going to be easy fixes, because that’s the reality.
A big criticism I’d have of the Welsh Assembly since 1999 just to be all local for a while, is it spends 99% of its time economically, basically working out ways to redistribute the money it gets from the UK, rather than actually thinking about using their powers to generate new wealth ( how about cutting income tax got entrepreneurs setting up in Wales and employ people????).
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
There's some real British exceptionalism here. We have won Eurovision multiple times, and as recently as 2022 placed top in the Jury vote and only came second because of the massive support for Ukraine in the public vote.
If we want to win, or at least put on a stronger showing, then bringing back the "Song for Europe" selection process with a public vote is the way to do it.
Alternatively MI6 sets up its own special hasbara unit to get every expat Brit and their grannies to fire in multiple votes for UK entries regardless of how shite it is. We could regularly be competing for second place.
Which highlights the point...
Eurovision should be a bit of fun. Same as Jeux sans Frontières. Same as any sport, when it comes down to it. None of matters.
The alleged vote-stuffing shows a country that's really not in a good place mentally.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
There's some real British exceptionalism here. We have won Eurovision multiple times, and as recently as 2022 placed top in the Jury vote and only came second because of the massive support for Ukraine in the public vote.
If we want to win, or at least put on a stronger showing, then bringing back the "Song for Europe" selection process with a public vote is the way to do it.
It’s the inconsistency, and the continual coming last or getting nul points. Yes I like the idea of a public vote for the song, as used to be the case.
For reasons that others have articulated, you’re got going to get an international A-list artist, which is a little against the spirit of the competition, but you should absolutely be encouraging the international A-list songwriters, of which the UK has many, to enter. There’s also plenty of established artists to consider, rather than taking on a complete unknown.
A throwaway comment up thread that Farage will be campaigning. Where is he?
Farage won't campaign until he has some evidence that Reform have a good chance. He doesn't want to risk being associated with a second by-election defeat in a row, so he has to wait until he knows the lie of the land first.
No. This same bullshit was said about Farage in Gorton and Denton too, but they campaigned for every vote. Reform will scrap for every vote, as they always do.
Farage disappeared at the end of the campaign when they realised they were going to lose.
He's very happy for the rest of the party to campaign hard and spend lots of other people's money doing so.
No he didn't. Everyone here was bumping their gums about how Farage had given up and was doing something down south instead, and then he went to the constituency that very day and campaigned hard, as did the rest of the Reform front bench team all through the campaign.
AI says this:
Yes, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage visited Gorton and Denton multiple times during the campaign for the by-election held on February 26, 2026.
Key details of his involvement include:
Campaign Visits: Farage made public campaign appearances in the constituency, including opening the party's campaign headquarters in Denton on February 5, 2026, and visiting ahead of the vote to rally support for candidate Matt Goodwin.
You are posting lazy Farage-bad nonsense pulled from your imagination - ironical that you are doing so whilst trying to portray Farage as a lazy, glory-seeking campaigner.
You're using AI to try to win an argument about facts. Instant fail.
I didn't say he hasn't been to the constituency at all. At the start of the campaign they thought they were going to win.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
The BBC's internal selection process keeps picking acts that are either crap or have almost no appeal outside of the UK. Sam Ryder in 2022 was an outlier because COVID derailed the process and they basically just picked a random guy someone saw on TikTok.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
I love this idea that we should be taking Eurovision more seriously. It's just a song contest that as far as I can see intentionally doesn't take itself that seriously. Can we not just send someone along each year, have a laugh and get involved with the campy fun and take our result with a smile whether it's first or last or anywhere in-between? Does there have to be an inquest every year?
Perhaps we should appoint a Eurovision Tsar. A top quality person from the private sector - Cowell? - with a specific brief to bring home the trophy within say 3 years. Pay he or she top dollar and give them the resource. Fund it from the Lottery. The template being what we did in cycling and rowing in the years preceding the 2012 London Olympics. Inculcate the culture of 'silver is a fail' and 'no stone left unturned' that worked so well there.
I love this idea that we should be taking Eurovision more seriously. It's just a song contest that as far as I can see intentionally doesn't take itself that seriously. Can we not just send someone along each year, have a laugh and get involved with the campy fun and take our result with a smile whether it's first or last or anywhere in-between? Does there have to be an inquest every year?
Perhaps we should appoint a Eurovision Tsar. A top quality person from the private sector - Cowell? - with a specific brief to bring home the trophy within say 3 years. Pay he or she top dollar and give them the resource. Fund it from the Lottery. The template being what we did in cycling and rowing in the years preceding the 2012 London Olympics. Inculcate the culture of 'silver is a fail' and 'no stone left unturned' that worked so well there.
Bookmakers have threatened a legal challenge to the implementation of affordability checks that the industry believes will mean one in five punters with an annual spend of as little as £200 are asked to provide financial documents.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
The BBC's internal selection process keeps picking acts that are either crap or have almost no appeal outside of the UK. Sam Ryder in 2022 was an outlier because COVID derailed the process and they basically just picked a random guy someone saw on TikTok.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
The UK has a very strong tradition of producing successful and talented music acts, Eurovision is irrelevant to that.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
The BBC's internal selection process keeps picking acts that are either crap or have almost no appeal outside of the UK. Sam Ryder in 2022 was an outlier because COVID derailed the process and they basically just picked a random guy someone saw on TikTok.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
I have a theory that Eurovision is a chance for small countries to take their revenge on large countries. It's not just the UK that under-performs these days. Germany, Spain and France also hardly ever win, and generally do badly
Look who won this year. Bulgaria. Israel last year. Small countries win
The one exception is Italy but that's probably because there is less resentment of Italy as a powerful country - everyone loves Italy - and also coz they take it seriously and send good songs from the San Remo festival
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
I love this idea that we should be taking Eurovision more seriously. It's just a song contest that as far as I can see intentionally doesn't take itself that seriously. Can we not just send someone along each year, have a laugh and get involved with the campy fun and take our result with a smile whether it's first or last or anywhere in-between? Does there have to be an inquest every year?
Perhaps we should appoint a Eurovision Tsar. A top quality person from the private sector - Cowell? - with a specific brief to bring home the trophy within say 3 years. Pay he or she top dollar and give them the resource. Fund it from the Lottery. The template being what we did in cycling and rowing in the years preceding the 2012 London Olympics. Inculcate the culture of 'silver is a fail' and 'no stone left unturned' that worked so well there.
But, but, but... why?
Well quite. It's just a bit of fun for heaven's sake.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
There's some real British exceptionalism here. We have won Eurovision multiple times, and as recently as 2022 placed top in the Jury vote and only came second because of the massive support for Ukraine in the public vote.
If we want to win, or at least put on a stronger showing, then bringing back the "Song for Europe" selection process with a public vote is the way to do it.
Alternatively MI6 sets up its own special hasbara unit to get every expat Brit and their grannies to fire in multiple votes for UK entries regardless of how shite it is. We could regularly be competing for second place.
Which highlights the point...
Eurovision should be a bit of fun. Same as Jeux sans Frontières. Same as any sport, when it comes down to it. None of matters.
The alleged vote-stuffing shows a country that's really not in a good place mentally.
Indeed. Every country has some kind of operation to present itself to the rest of the world, but trying to fix a silly camp pop song competition because your international ratings are bombing (!) suggests a certain lack of perspective.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
The BBC's internal selection process keeps picking acts that are either crap or have almost no appeal outside of the UK. Sam Ryder in 2022 was an outlier because COVID derailed the process and they basically just picked a random guy someone saw on TikTok.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
I have a theory that Eurovision is a chance for small countries to take their revenge on large countries. It's not just the UK that under-performs these days. Germany, Spain and France also hardly ever win, and generally do badly
Look who won this year. Bulgaria. Israel last year. Small countries win
The one exception is Italy but that's probably because there is less resentment of Italy as a powerful country - everyone loves Italy - and also coz they take it seriously and send good songs from the San Remo festival
Also, the big four (UK, France, Germany, Italy) are exempt from the semi-fnals. So bad performances/bad songs from other countries don't make it through to the finals, and there's less pressure on the big four to enter with something good. Maybe if the options were do it properly or go home before the big night, UK entries would be better.
On the other hand, I suspect that the audience would be well down if any of those four weren't in the final. So I can see why they do it that way.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
There's some real British exceptionalism here. We have won Eurovision multiple times, and as recently as 2022 placed top in the Jury vote and only came second because of the massive support for Ukraine in the public vote.
If we want to win, or at least put on a stronger showing, then bringing back the "Song for Europe" selection process with a public vote is the way to do it.
It’s the inconsistency, and the continual coming last or getting nul points. Yes I like the idea of a public vote for the song, as used to be the case.
For reasons that others have articulated, you’re got going to get an international A-list artist, which is a little against the spirit of the competition, but you should absolutely be encouraging the international A-list songwriters, of which the UK has many, to enter. There’s also plenty of established artists to consider, rather than taking on a complete unknown.
Australia entered Delta Goodrem, and San Marino had Boy George guesting, both once A-list artists, albeit perhaps past their prime. The Italian entrant, Sal da Vinci, has some renown, with three top 20 albums in Italy. So it’s not unknown.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
The BBC's internal selection process keeps picking acts that are either crap or have almost no appeal outside of the UK. Sam Ryder in 2022 was an outlier because COVID derailed the process and they basically just picked a random guy someone saw on TikTok.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
I have a theory that Eurovision is a chance for small countries to take their revenge on large countries. It's not just the UK that under-performs these days. Germany, Spain and France also hardly ever win, and generally do badly
Look who won this year. Bulgaria. Israel last year. Small countries win
The one exception is Italy but that's probably because there is less resentment of Italy as a powerful country - everyone loves Italy - and also coz they take it seriously and send good songs from the San Remo festival
Also, the big four (UK, France, Germany, Italy) are exempt from the semi-fnals. So bad performances/bad songs from other countries don't make it through to the finals, and there's less pressure on the big four to enter with something good. Maybe if the options were do it properly or go home before the big night, UK entries would be better.
On the other hand, I suspect that the audience would be well down if any of those four weren't in the final. So I can see why they do it that way.
Yes, and as I said, Italy actually does take it seriously. Apparently they use the famous San Remo festival to choose their candidate
I am pretty sure my theory is correct. Imagine if the USA was allowed to enter. They would never ever win. Too much resentment, in different forms. The Big Five in Europe are resented (albeit not as much as the USA)
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
Yes I really struggle with the vitriol levelled at Starmer. He was a London lawyer without a gift for oratory before the election and that’s what we got. After the Boris /Truss psychodrama some of us wanted a bit of boring thank you very much. Now I’d argue the CoE is a bit clueless frankly, and other ministers are not my cup of tea, but Starmer is not keeping me awake at night at least. And yes, he’s been unlucky too with Trump being Trump and queering everyone’s pitch economically.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
It’s reassuring to read on Visegrad that the car ramming of people in Modena in Italy wasn’t terrorism but the poor chap had mental health issues.
Combining this with another theme on this thread, the time to worry is when terrorists have guns and bombs (again) rather than cars and kitchen knives used by self-radicalised lone wolf Islamists and wannabe Nazis. Not much comfort to the murdered, of course.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
The BBC's internal selection process keeps picking acts that are either crap or have almost no appeal outside of the UK. Sam Ryder in 2022 was an outlier because COVID derailed the process and they basically just picked a random guy someone saw on TikTok.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
I have a theory that Eurovision is a chance for small countries to take their revenge on large countries. It's not just the UK that under-performs these days. Germany, Spain and France also hardly ever win, and generally do badly
Look who won this year. Bulgaria. Israel last year. Small countries win
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
The BBC's internal selection process keeps picking acts that are either crap or have almost no appeal outside of the UK. Sam Ryder in 2022 was an outlier because COVID derailed the process and they basically just picked a random guy someone saw on TikTok.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
I have a theory that Eurovision is a chance for small countries to take their revenge on large countries. It's not just the UK that under-performs these days. Germany, Spain and France also hardly ever win, and generally do badly
Look who won this year. Bulgaria. Israel last year. Small countries win
Austria won last year.
Indeed. I don't pay a lot of attention to eurovision, apart from constructing grand psychopolitical theories around it
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
I was a Labour MP for 13 years under Blair and Brown, and broadly supportive, not because I agreed with everything, but because I liked the overall sense of direction towards a more equal society. I've come close to leaving Labour and joining the Greens, not because I felt that Zac inspired tremendous confidence - he is casual about the truth too often for comfort - but because the Greens do appear to offer a sense of direction, and as Welshowl says the current Government doesn't appear to have any consistent plan.
I don't hate Starmer, and was CLP chair till recently, but Burnham appears to have more of a sense of direction. So I'll postpone any departure till we see how if he makes it, and with what arguments.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
Yes I really struggle with the vitriol levelled at Starmer. He was a London lawyer without a gift for oratory before the election and that’s what we got. After the Boris /Truss psychodrama some of us wanted a bit of boring thank you very much. Now I’d argue the CoE is a bit clueless frankly, and other ministers are not my cup of tea, but Starmer is not keeping me awake at night at least. And yes, he’s been unlucky too with Trump being Trump and queering everyone’s pitch economically.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
I do not claim to understand the visceral hatred for Starmer but I accept it is there. What has led to Starmer's downfall is not his lack of principle or ideology, not his poor judgement in appointing Peter Mandelson, not even losing so many councils and councillors. The direct cause is the finding of MPs canvassing in the locals that so many voters had turned against the Prime Minister personally.
It’s reassuring to read on Visegrad that the car ramming of people in Modena in Italy wasn’t terrorism but the poor chap had mental health issues.
Combining this with another theme on this thread, the time to worry is when terrorists have guns and bombs (again) rather than cars and kitchen knives used by self-radicalised lone wolf Islamists and wannabe Nazis. Not much comfort to the murdered, of course.
At least in the UK the solution is to remove the pointed edges off kitchen knives to solve the stabbing problem.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
The BBC's internal selection process keeps picking acts that are either crap or have almost no appeal outside of the UK. Sam Ryder in 2022 was an outlier because COVID derailed the process and they basically just picked a random guy someone saw on TikTok.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
I have a theory that Eurovision is a chance for small countries to take their revenge on large countries. It's not just the UK that under-performs these days. Germany, Spain and France also hardly ever win, and generally do badly
Look who won this year. Bulgaria. Israel last year. Small countries win
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
Yes I really struggle with the vitriol levelled at Starmer. He was a London lawyer without a gift for oratory before the election and that’s what we got. After the Boris /Truss psychodrama some of us wanted a bit of boring thank you very much. Now I’d argue the CoE is a bit clueless frankly, and other ministers are not my cup of tea, but Starmer is not keeping me awake at night at least. And yes, he’s been unlucky too with Trump being Trump and queering everyone’s pitch economically.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
What they're doing is both crazy (for the reasons you cite) and at the same time 100% rational if you accept (as I do) that there's something about Keir Starmer that gets people's back up, something he can't change, and so barring a miracle he'd be leading the party to a terrible GE result. Not the end of the world if it means another Tory government of the type we know and don't love, but Farage and his ghastly crew? No no no.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
There's some real British exceptionalism here. We have won Eurovision multiple times, and as recently as 2022 placed top in the Jury vote and only came second because of the massive support for Ukraine in the public vote.
If we want to win, or at least put on a stronger showing, then bringing back the "Song for Europe" selection process with a public vote is the way to do it.
It’s the inconsistency, and the continual coming last or getting nul points. Yes I like the idea of a public vote for the song, as used to be the case.
For reasons that others have articulated, you’re got going to get an international A-list artist, which is a little against the spirit of the competition, but you should absolutely be encouraging the international A-list songwriters, of which the UK has many, to enter. There’s also plenty of established artists to consider, rather than taking on a complete unknown.
Australia entered Delta Goodrem, and San Marino had Boy George guesting, both once A-list artists, albeit perhaps past their prime. The Italian entrant, Sal da Vinci, has some renown, with three top 20 albums in Italy. So it’s not unknown.
That Bulgaress is a major star back home apparently.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
James is one of my favourite twitter accounts. Harry and Paul are excellent together.
The original Harry and Paul "quare" sketch is right up there in my top five of all time. Along with the Working Class Hitchcock Birds spoof from Big Train
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
Yes I really struggle with the vitriol levelled at Starmer. He was a London lawyer without a gift for oratory before the election and that’s what we got. After the Boris /Truss psychodrama some of us wanted a bit of boring thank you very much. Now I’d argue the CoE is a bit clueless frankly, and other ministers are not my cup of tea, but Starmer is not keeping me awake at night at least. And yes, he’s been unlucky too with Trump being Trump and queering everyone’s pitch economically.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
What they're doing is both crazy (for the reasons you cite) and at the same time 100% rational if you accept (as I do) that there's something about Keir Starmer that gets people's back up, something he can't change, and so barring a miracle he'd be leading the party to a terrible GE result. Not the end of the world if it means another Tory government of the type we know and don't love, but Farage and his ghastly crew? No no no.
Yes take your points there. But a bit like the Tories in 2022 it can go really wrong if you end up with a Labour Truss ( which is what I think Rayner would be), and a “normal” defeat becomes meltdown.
A throwaway comment up thread that Farage will be campaigning. Where is he?
Farage won't campaign until he has some evidence that Reform have a good chance. He doesn't want to risk being associated with a second by-election defeat in a row, so he has to wait until he knows the lie of the land first.
No. This same bullshit was said about Farage in Gorton and Denton too, but they campaigned for every vote. Reform will scrap for every vote, as they always do.
Farage disappeared at the end of the campaign when they realised they were going to lose.
He's very happy for the rest of the party to campaign hard and spend lots of other people's money doing so.
No he didn't. Everyone here was bumping their gums about how Farage had given up and was doing something down south instead, and then he went to the constituency that very day and campaigned hard, as did the rest of the Reform front bench team all through the campaign.
AI says this:
Yes, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage visited Gorton and Denton multiple times during the campaign for the by-election held on February 26, 2026.
Key details of his involvement include:
Campaign Visits: Farage made public campaign appearances in the constituency, including opening the party's campaign headquarters in Denton on February 5, 2026, and visiting ahead of the vote to rally support for candidate Matt Goodwin.
You are posting lazy Farage-bad nonsense pulled from your imagination - ironical that you are doing so whilst trying to portray Farage as a lazy, glory-seeking campaigner.
He was on a freebie to the Maldives paid for by his crypto-bro mate the critical weekend before the by election.
Whoever on PB last night tipped Bulgaria - many thanks!
BF have now paid my small winnings and next week's curry night is mainly paid for.
Taking notes last night (as one does) I simply wrote “Eurovision!” next to Bulgaria and my wife wrote “winner”.
Head and shoulders above the rest.
That's what I thought but my wife - who plays three musical instruments and did music as part of her degree - disagreed. She thought it was one of the worst.
LOL
What does anyone know?
Ha!
If musicality is what you’re looking for, perhaps Eurovision is the wrong choice.
But as a piece of eurotrash pop, it was a banger
FWIW - she thought UK was great: something different and inventive.
Something weird occured to me whilst I was watching Eurovision last night. The high camp and outright smut seemed to have been toned down quite a lot in the songs themselves. At stages I did think an actual song contest broke out, there was interesting and varied fare that if you heard on the radio, stripped of the need for staging in a certain manner, you might actually appreciate to some degree.
Bulgaria, whatever their merits, weren't playing that sophisticated game. The UK put in an entry much better than some of the really asinine fare we've done over the years and actually did deserve a bit better than it got.
At least one was reportedly censored.
Too many hip-thrusts, aiui. Was it the Polish one? "Too much pole".
Let's Thrust Again, like Elvis the Pelvis did in 1956. Ironically, the year Eurovision was founded.
It was the Norwegian guy who was told to "tone it down".
I thought the standard was pretty good this year. I was at a Eurovision party last night, and I got Bulgaria in the sweepstake!
I see that the UK came last again.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
There's some real British exceptionalism here. We have won Eurovision multiple times, and as recently as 2022 placed top in the Jury vote and only came second because of the massive support for Ukraine in the public vote.
If we want to win, or at least put on a stronger showing, then bringing back the "Song for Europe" selection process with a public vote is the way to do it.
It’s the inconsistency, and the continual coming last or getting nul points. Yes I like the idea of a public vote for the song, as used to be the case.
For reasons that others have articulated, you’re got going to get an international A-list artist, which is a little against the spirit of the competition, but you should absolutely be encouraging the international A-list songwriters, of which the UK has many, to enter. There’s also plenty of established artists to consider, rather than taking on a complete unknown.
Australia entered Delta Goodrem, and San Marino had Boy George guesting, both once A-list artists, albeit perhaps past their prime. The Italian entrant, Sal da Vinci, has some renown, with three top 20 albums in Italy. So it’s not unknown.
That Bulgaress is a major star back home apparently.
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
The BBC's internal selection process keeps picking acts that are either crap or have almost no appeal outside of the UK. Sam Ryder in 2022 was an outlier because COVID derailed the process and they basically just picked a random guy someone saw on TikTok.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
I have a theory that Eurovision is a chance for small countries to take their revenge on large countries. It's not just the UK that under-performs these days. Germany, Spain and France also hardly ever win, and generally do badly
Look who won this year. Bulgaria. Israel last year. Small countries win
Austria won last year.
Indeed. I don't pay a lot of attention to eurovision, apart from constructing grand psychopolitical theories around it
If it helps, another small country, Switzerland, won two years ago.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
I was a Labour MP for 13 years under Blair and Brown, and broadly supportive, not because I agreed with everything, but because I liked the overall sense of direction towards a more equal society. I've come close to leaving Labour and joining the Greens, not because I felt that Zac inspired tremendous confidence - he is casual about the truth too often for comfort - but because the Greens do appear to offer a sense of direction, and as Welshowl says the current Government doesn't appear to have any consistent plan.
I don't hate Starmer, and was CLP chair till recently, but Burnham appears to have more of a sense of direction. So I'll postpone any departure till we see how if he makes it, and with what arguments.
Good to hear.
Yes, it's not a 'plan' that I'm looking for - wouldn't know what one even looks like - it's the feeling that a Labour government has a big reduction in inequality as it's number one domestic priority.
That's actually, deep down, why I vote Labour and give money to it. It's the issue I most care about. It really bugs me how people's life prospects are influenced more than anything else by their birth circumstances. I want to see tackling this injustice informing policy across the board.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
I think you can go back even further and question whether the single market has delivered what its advocates claimed it would. Since then, there's been a technological revolution in which Europe's main achievement has been regulating itself out of the game.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
Yes I really struggle with the vitriol levelled at Starmer. He was a London lawyer without a gift for oratory before the election and that’s what we got. After the Boris /Truss psychodrama some of us wanted a bit of boring thank you very much. Now I’d argue the CoE is a bit clueless frankly, and other ministers are not my cup of tea, but Starmer is not keeping me awake at night at least. And yes, he’s been unlucky too with Trump being Trump and queering everyone’s pitch economically.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
What they're doing is both crazy (for the reasons you cite) and at the same time 100% rational if you accept (as I do) that there's something about Keir Starmer that gets people's back up, something he can't change, and so barring a miracle he'd be leading the party to a terrible GE result. Not the end of the world if it means another Tory government of the type we know and don't love, but Farage and his ghastly crew? No no no.
Systematic pre planned long anticipated character assassination by right wing press and media with well positioned plants in TV like Gibb, Peston and various at Sky started at 10am the day after the GE.
One aim One plan
It worked brilliantly.
The only drawback for the plotters is it benefitted Farage as the Tories elected an imbecile.
Amazingly part of the right wing media plan was to talk up Burnham as some sort of Northern Thorpe demi god.
The result, they have slain the target a couple of years early and created the beast who gobble the right wing up too.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
Yes I really struggle with the vitriol levelled at Starmer. He was a London lawyer without a gift for oratory before the election and that’s what we got. After the Boris /Truss psychodrama some of us wanted a bit of boring thank you very much. Now I’d argue the CoE is a bit clueless frankly, and other ministers are not my cup of tea, but Starmer is not keeping me awake at night at least. And yes, he’s been unlucky too with Trump being Trump and queering everyone’s pitch economically.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
What they're doing is both crazy (for the reasons you cite) and at the same time 100% rational if you accept (as I do) that there's something about Keir Starmer that gets people's back up, something he can't change, and so barring a miracle he'd be leading the party to a terrible GE result. Not the end of the world if it means another Tory government of the type we know and don't love, but Farage and his ghastly crew? No no no.
Systematic pre planned long anticipated character assassination by right wing press and media with well positioned plants in TV like Gibb, Peston and various at Sky started at 10am the day after the GE.
One aim One plan
It worked brilliantly.
The only drawback for the plotters is it benefitted Farage as the Tories elected an imbecile.
Amazingly part of the right wing media plan was to talk up Burnham as some sort of Northern Thorpe demi god.
The result, they have slain the target a couple of years early and created the beast who gobble the right wing up too.
Labour leaders do get a roasting, don't they.
What's your take on PM Burnham? Can he turn the polls?
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
I think you can go back even further and question whether the single market has delivered what its advocates claimed it would. Since then, there's been a technological revolution in which Europe's main achievement has been regulating itself out of the game.
Quite so
The liberal left centrist dork Rejoiners are bizarre people. They are hankering for an EU that no longer exists, economically or politically
Economically the EU is languishing. It is falling ever further behind the USA when EMU was meant to achieve the opposite. It is also being overtaken by Asia. And it has almost zero claim to the new technologies that are gonna transform society (many of them invented and perfected by Europeans, ironically)
Politically, and partly as a result of the above, the EU is swinging to the hard right and possibly the far right. It is not the cosy social democratic club of yore. It will soon be very seriously right wing. And waaaaaay to the right of the British government as it stands
And yet Rejoiners seem wilfully blind to both these obvious and fundamental truths. It’s quite odd
A wonderful anti-cycling article in the Daily Telegraph about a cycling focused cafe in the Windsor Railway Station ex-booking hall. The claim is that new phalanxes of MAMILs are descending on it from West London for a special 10% discount, locals are complaining that they do not get it, and Windsor is suddenly overrun. "Two abreast gets in", as does "war on motorists".
Tensions are simmering, and Windsor is about to explode. The Blue Rinse army and the Basement Dwellers of Tunbridge Wells are out and shouting in the comments.
(Note: the cafe has existed since 2001, it has lots of its own cycle parking for safety, the discount has been in place for perhaps 2 decades, and locals DO get it.)
This entertainment may soon cease, as they must be approaching the bottom of the barrel for these articles.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
Yes I really struggle with the vitriol levelled at Starmer. He was a London lawyer without a gift for oratory before the election and that’s what we got. After the Boris /Truss psychodrama some of us wanted a bit of boring thank you very much. Now I’d argue the CoE is a bit clueless frankly, and other ministers are not my cup of tea, but Starmer is not keeping me awake at night at least. And yes, he’s been unlucky too with Trump being Trump and queering everyone’s pitch economically.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
What they're doing is both crazy (for the reasons you cite) and at the same time 100% rational if you accept (as I do) that there's something about Keir Starmer that gets people's back up, something he can't change, and so barring a miracle he'd be leading the party to a terrible GE result. Not the end of the world if it means another Tory government of the type we know and don't love, but Farage and his ghastly crew? No no no.
Systematic pre planned long anticipated character assassination by right wing press and media with well positioned plants in TV like Gibb, Peston and various at Sky started at 10am the day after the GE.
One aim One plan
It worked brilliantly.
The only drawback for the plotters is it benefitted Farage as the Tories elected an imbecile.
Amazingly part of the right wing media plan was to talk up Burnham as some sort of Northern Thorpe demi god.
The result, they have slain the target a couple of years early and created the beast who gobble the right wing up too.
So the Guardian is a right wing rag?
And the rise of the Green Party is a right wing media plan?
Starmer methodically alienated the Left, the Right and the Middle. In his own party.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
I think you can go back even further and question whether the single market has delivered what its advocates claimed it would. Since then, there's been a technological revolution in which Europe's main achievement has been regulating itself out of the game.
Quite so
The liberal left centrist dork Rejoiners are bizarre people. They are hankering for an EU that no longer exists, economically or politically
Economically the EU is languishing. It is falling ever further behind the USA when EMU was meant to achieve the opposite. It is also being overtaken by Asia. And it has almost zero claim to the new technologies that are gonna transform society (many of them invented and perfected by Europeans, ironically)
Politically, and partly as a result of the above, the EU is swinging to the hard right and possibly the far right. It is not the cosy social democratic club of yore. It will soon be very seriously right wing. And waaaaaay to the right of the British government as it stands
And yet Rejoiners seem wilfully blind to both these obvious and fundamental truths. It’s quite odd
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
Yes I really struggle with the vitriol levelled at Starmer. He was a London lawyer without a gift for oratory before the election and that’s what we got. After the Boris /Truss psychodrama some of us wanted a bit of boring thank you very much. Now I’d argue the CoE is a bit clueless frankly, and other ministers are not my cup of tea, but Starmer is not keeping me awake at night at least. And yes, he’s been unlucky too with Trump being Trump and queering everyone’s pitch economically.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
What they're doing is both crazy (for the reasons you cite) and at the same time 100% rational if you accept (as I do) that there's something about Keir Starmer that gets people's back up, something he can't change, and so barring a miracle he'd be leading the party to a terrible GE result. Not the end of the world if it means another Tory government of the type we know and don't love, but Farage and his ghastly crew? No no no.
Yes take your points there. But a bit like the Tories in 2022 it can go really wrong if you end up with a Labour Truss ( which is what I think Rayner would be), and a “normal” defeat becomes meltdown.
There is that risk. But for now - and this is by conscious act of will to keep up spirits - I'm going to hope Burnham wins the seat, takes over, and lifts the skittish atmosphere around both the country and the Labour party.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Well that is just nonsense. The Euro has only been in existence for about 25 years and its membership is growing so you wouldn't expect anyone to have left it yet. In that time however 2 countries have contemplated leaving (Finland and Greece) and if we had been in the Euro and then Brexited we would have done so. How is the Euro different (in terms of leaving) from any other currency union (well in reality they are all different in their own way)?. I grant you it is a very difficult thing to do, but we Brexited and that had never been done before either. Yet we did it.
We made a complete hash of Brexiting and no doubt leaving the Euro would be completely fraught for anyone also.
You do make a drama out of everything. Everything is always so totally wonderful, or a complete disaster. Stuff happens. Just roll with it. Stop being a drama queen.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Well that is just nonsense. The Euro has only been in existence for about 25 years and its membership is growing so you wouldn't expect anyone to have left it yet. In that time however 2 countries have contemplated leaving (Finland and Greece) and if we had been in the Euro and then Brexited we would have done so. How is the Euro different (in terms of leaving) from any other currency union (well in reality they are all different in their own way)?. I grant you it is a very difficult thing to do, but we Brexited and that had never been done before either. Yet we did it.
We made a complete hash of Brexiting and no doubt leaving the Euro would be completely fraught for anyone also.
You do make a drama out of everything. Everything is always so totally wonderful, or a complete disaster. Stuff happens. Just roll with it. Stop being a drama queen.
Someone needs to liven up the site when it is infested with interminable and insufferable centrist dad bores like you. Without me and a couple of others PB would basically be Bluesky but even sadder
You should be thanking me. Maybe even paying me. If you DM me I’ll give you my bank details so you can donate
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
In PPP GDP terms both the US and EU economies have tripled since 1999.
I don’t see how at this stage any party can be good on immigration if their actual policy ends up being EU rejoin. As that includes FOM.
I supported FOM. But we have left now and I don’t want it back.
Which is the killer for Burnham. If his Rejoin beliefs come under scrutiny he will get beaten up about FOM
He could potentially go for EU Migration > Tory non-EU migration, but that's very risky indeed - the left will get upset about implied racism/Islamophobia, and it's still pro-immigration.
On today’s EU excitement. Brexit is no longer a touchstone issue, even in heavy leave areas. The view is “we voted for it, but they didn’t deliver it”. People have moved on. Immigration, huge issue. Brexit. No one mentions the word now
I'm a few hours behind the thread but I read this post on Twitter earlier. "They didn't deliver it [Brexit]"
Which demonstrates that when some people voted to leave the EU, the anticipated destination was not leaving the EU. It was x.
The current hooey about immigration is a continuation of this. People want to stop immigration, but that isn't their destination. Any politician who can bypass all of these angst stages and go straight to that destination will be a huge winner.
Seriously, in what kind of parallel world have they not delivered Brexit? Is it just in my imagination that my kids have lost their right to live and work in the EU and I have to wait in like for an hour every time I fly somewhere on the continent? Thank God it is all a hallucination, cos it seems pretty shit. Fucksake Leave voters are idiots if this is what they are saying. They will never be happy.
They were expecting the sunlit uplands promised by Farage, Johnson et al. As Rochdale says.
My life is shit I don't know or care how the system works This guy says its the fault of the EU / brown people I now keep seeing other people saying the same thing in ways I understand So I want to leave the EU / deport brown people so my life is no longer shit
Brexit failed because their lives are shitter than ever. Leaving the EU was not the goal in 2016, just as deporting brown people is not the goal in 2026.
Barnsley council were one of the best for competence and efficiency. They focused hard on improving the town and it's generally felt they succeeded. I know the place well and can confirm. Yet they were kicked out wholescale on May 7th in favour of Reform.
So I don't know. There's obviously something in what you say, people are pissed off, but I'm increasingly of the view there's something else going on with voting patterns that isn't really explained by their lives being shit. Eg a lot of Reform voters are not in 'cry for help' circumstances. They are perfectly comfortable, financially and socially.
If it really is about just voting for random things like Brexit or loudmouth bigots or mass deportations of immigrants or (left side) dumbo quack hypnotists, hoping that will deliver some sort of transformative improvement in their lives, then we're in big trouble. Because it won't, it'll be the opposite, and so where does all this end?
Which is why per capita economic growth is key. In rough terms the economy quadrupled in real terms in 60 years from 1948-2008 whilst the population grew from about 50m to 60/62M. So there was an obvious buy in to not rock the boat too far one way or the other because the vast majority were getting appreciably better off steadily.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Although I'm skeptical it explains all of it that has to be a big factor, yes. Just to note that there were some positive signs on the economy before Donald Trump launched his latest piece of vandalism.
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
Yes I really struggle with the vitriol levelled at Starmer. He was a London lawyer without a gift for oratory before the election and that’s what we got. After the Boris /Truss psychodrama some of us wanted a bit of boring thank you very much. Now I’d argue the CoE is a bit clueless frankly, and other ministers are not my cup of tea, but Starmer is not keeping me awake at night at least. And yes, he’s been unlucky too with Trump being Trump and queering everyone’s pitch economically.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
What they're doing is both crazy (for the reasons you cite) and at the same time 100% rational if you accept (as I do) that there's something about Keir Starmer that gets people's back up, something he can't change, and so barring a miracle he'd be leading the party to a terrible GE result. Not the end of the world if it means another Tory government of the type we know and don't love, but Farage and his ghastly crew? No no no.
Systematic pre planned long anticipated character assassination by right wing press and media with well positioned plants in TV like Gibb, Peston and various at Sky started at 10am the day after the GE.
One aim One plan
It worked brilliantly.
The only drawback for the plotters is it benefitted Farage as the Tories elected an imbecile.
Amazingly part of the right wing media plan was to talk up Burnham as some sort of Northern Thorpe demi god.
The result, they have slain the target a couple of years early and created the beast who gobble the right wing up too.
Your delusion this is the right wing fault and your usual anti Kemi nonsense is simply partisan rubbish
Starmer, like Johnson before him, has done this all on his own starting with people buying his clothes and freebies, then 16 plus u turns, then appointing Mandelson as US ambassador, sacking anyone and everyone when he was caught out, and not seeing the utter hypocrisy of his demands for Johnson to resign but not applying the same standards to himself
It is labour , and only labour, who are in their own civil war as the public look on with dismay
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
In PPP GDP terms both the US and EU economies have tripled since 1999.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
In PPP GDP terms both the US and EU economies have tripled since 1999.
Shall we have a look at an actual graph?
Do youy understand what PPP means? Show us an 'actual graph' of US versus EU PPP GDP.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
For my money its, US people work longer hours, Europeans have more leisure. Plus they've had a few big tech companies that have lifted the whole economy.
Will be interesting to see if European efforts on digital sovereignty change things.
This is very good from Sean O Grady though might be considered blasphemous.
Our Donor who art in Thailand Harborne be thy name thy crypto come thy will be done in parliament as it is in Clacton Give us this day our daily wedge And forgive us our libels as we sue those who write against us And lead us not into transparency but deliver us to GB News
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
In PPP GDP terms both the US and EU economies have tripled since 1999.
Shall we have a look at an actual graph?
Do youy understand what PPP means? Show us an 'actual graph' of US versus EU PPP GDP.
GDP by PPP is ludicrous when making these particular comparisons
Going on GDP by PPP, India is three times the size of Japan, economically. Do you believe that is true? Do you believe India has three times the economic heft of Japan? No, of course you don't, because it's not true. GDP by PPP also says that Russia is bigger and economically more powerful than the UK, France, Japan or Germany. Do you believe that? No, you don't believe that either
Ergo, the USA really is much richer and considerably bigger than the eurozone, and the euro has failed in its primary task
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
In PPP GDP terms both the US and EU economies have tripled since 1999.
Shall we have a look at an actual graph?
Do youy understand what PPP means? Show us an 'actual graph' of US versus EU PPP GDP.
GDP by PPP is ludicrous when making these particular comparisons
Going on GDP by PPP, India is three times the size of Japan, economically. Do you believe that is true? Do you believe India has three times the economic heft of Japan? No, of course you don't, because it's not true. GDP by PPP also says that Russia is bigger and economically more powerful than the UK, France, Japan or Germany. Do you believe that? No, you don't believe that either
Ergo, the USA really is much richer and considerably bigger than the eurozone, and the euro has failed in its primary task
That's a very long-winded way of saying "Yes, you're right Ben, the EU has outpaced the US in purchasing parity GDP, and of course purchasing power is what ordinary people actually experience".
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
In PPP GDP terms both the US and EU economies have tripled since 1999.
Shall we have a look at an actual graph?
Do youy understand what PPP means? Show us an 'actual graph' of US versus EU PPP GDP.
GDP by PPP is ludicrous when making these particular comparisons
Going on GDP by PPP, India is three times the size of Japan, economically. Do you believe that is true? Do you believe India has three times the economic heft of Japan? No, of course you don't, because it's not true. GDP by PPP also says that Russia is bigger and economically more powerful than the UK, France, Japan or Germany. Do you believe that? No, you don't believe that either
Ergo, the USA really is much richer and considerably bigger than the eurozone, and the euro has failed in its primary task
That's a very long-winded way of saying "Yes, you're right Ben, the EU has outpaced the US in purchasing parity GDP, and of course purchasing power is what ordinary people actually experience".
No, it was a polite way of saying "Ben, you're an idiot"
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
Your argument just sounds like it must be better because REASONS.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
For my money its, US people work longer hours, Europeans have more leisure. Plus they've had a few big tech companies that have lifted the whole economy.
Will be interesting to see if European efforts on digital sovereignty change things.
That's partly true. But it avoids the point. WHY has America developed these incredible tech companies, whereas Europe has totally failed? Where is the European Google, Amazon, Meta, Tesla, Nvidia? It's not a lack of human capital, half the people in these companies are European. it's not a lack of basic capital, Europe has fallen behind but it is still rich. Therefore, something in Europe is holding people back, and one of those things is stifling EU regulation. The EU now admits this- see the Draghi report - yet still seems incapable of doing anything about it
Also, the difference is now becoming painfully obvious. I dunno if you've been to the USA recently but I've been several times in the last three years, and I have been all over, from DC to Portland, from Seattle to Nashville, from the richest states like California to the poorer like West Virginia
The relative wealth of America compared to the EU is striking, and a bit depressing, TBH
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
Hard to grow when demented/treacherous energy policies ban wells from getting it out.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
For my money its, US people work longer hours, Europeans have more leisure. Plus they've had a few big tech companies that have lifted the whole economy.
Will be interesting to see if European efforts on digital sovereignty change things.
That's partly true. But it avoids the point. WHY has America developed these incredible tech companies, whereas Europe has totally failed? Where is the European Google, Amazon, Meta, Tesla, Nvidia? It's not a lack of human capital, half the people in these companies are European. it's not a lack of basic capital, Europe has fallen behind but it is still rich. Therefore, something in Europe is holding people back, and one of those things is stifling EU regulation. The EU now admits this- see the Draghi report - yet still seems incapable of doing anything about it
Also, the difference is now becoming painfully obvious. I dunno if you've been to the USA recently but I've been several times in the last three years, and I have been all over, from DC to Portland, from Seattle to Nashville, from the richest states like California to the poorer like West Virginia
The relative wealth of America compared to the EU is striking, and a bit depressing, TBH
The EU might have looked like the future in the 1990s.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
In PPP GDP terms both the US and EU economies have tripled since 1999.
Shall we have a look at an actual graph?
Do youy understand what PPP means? Show us an 'actual graph' of US versus EU PPP GDP.
GDP by PPP is ludicrous when making these particular comparisons
Going on GDP by PPP, India is three times the size of Japan, economically. Do you believe that is true? Do you believe India has three times the economic heft of Japan? No, of course you don't, because it's not true. GDP by PPP also says that Russia is bigger and economically more powerful than the UK, France, Japan or Germany. Do you believe that? No, you don't believe that either
Ergo, the USA really is much richer and considerably bigger than the eurozone, and the euro has failed in its primary task
That's a very long-winded way of saying "Yes, you're right Ben, the EU has outpaced the US in purchasing parity GDP, and of course purchasing power is what ordinary people actually experience".
No, it was a polite way of saying "Ben, you're an idiot"
I am afraid he is not. Your argument is flawed. In your example you are comparing absolute PPP of completely different economies as opposed to the changes in PPP for similar economies. Two important issues you have missed, change not absolute and comparable economies.
Why do you think someone produced the graph @Benpointer posted if it is nonsense?
PS Even taking the above into account as @kinabalu pointed out other factors have an effect, like what type of economy do you want. Are you willing to make scarifies for more social welfare? Do you have the benefit of natural mineral wealth?
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
In PPP GDP terms both the US and EU economies have tripled since 1999.
Shall we have a look at an actual graph?
Do youy understand what PPP means? Show us an 'actual graph' of US versus EU PPP GDP.
GDP by PPP is ludicrous when making these particular comparisons
Going on GDP by PPP, India is three times the size of Japan, economically. Do you believe that is true? Do you believe India has three times the economic heft of Japan? No, of course you don't, because it's not true. GDP by PPP also says that Russia is bigger and economically more powerful than the UK, France, Japan or Germany. Do you believe that? No, you don't believe that either
Ergo, the USA really is much richer and considerably bigger than the eurozone, and the euro has failed in its primary task
That's a very long-winded way of saying "Yes, you're right Ben, the EU has outpaced the US in purchasing parity GDP, and of course purchasing power is what ordinary people actually experience".
GDP by PPP is usually PB's favourite measure; not sure why it's suddenly being abandoned. Indeed on PPP terms, the US is still way ahead on for household disposable income - it's just that overall GDP hasn't grown any faster or slower than the EU.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
The EU has considerable shale gas resources, in Poland, Germany, France, and elsewhere. Maybe not quite as rich as those in the USA, but definitely significant
Almost none of it is being extracted, because the EU is politically stupid. France banned fracking as early as 2011. Germany, Holland, the UK and others have all followed suit. Europe self harms in multiple ways, this is one of them
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's a bit like Brexit - no one can describe the mechanism by which the UK has enjoyed significantly higher growth than if it had stayed in the EU (while there are plenty of indicators pointing the other way).
A big part of the issue in the UK and Europe is mentality over risk, which leads to much smaller investments and unwillingness to go all in backing companies. Try raising £5-10 million in the UK for a start-up compared to the US, its chalk and cheese.
We only have to look at the 3 companies the UK government bang on about being our big tech successess.
Deepmind, bought by Google early on, then Google have invested billions into them before they got any return.
Synthesia, been backed now with £200m of funding in the past 2-3 years to go from tiny 30 person outfit to 100s of employees, where did the money come from, US backers. I believe the Mark Cuban took a punt on them with some pretty big cheques very early on (when they couldn't get UK or EU money) and since then consistent US venture capital money every 6-12 months.
Wayve, they are trying to the be the UK Waymo, they really struggled to scale and get going, in the past year or so, "expanded" to the US, why, it will be to prove the tech to get US investment.
Which is the UK FinTech that the same, they were doing ok in Europe but struggling to get big investment, so management moved to the US, and it turboed charged them.
This is why the US ends up with this massive companies, they are willing to back them with serious capital to turn something like a Synthesia, which was a nice idea, AI avatar training videos, but needed huge amount of backing to scale this thing fast. Now they dominant the space with large numbers of the world biggest companies using them.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
The EU has considerable shale gas resources, in Poland, Germany, France, and elsewhere. Maybe not quite as rich as those in the USA, but definitely significant
Almost none of it is being extracted, because the EU is politically stupid. France banned fracking as early as 2011. Germany, Holland, the UK and others have all followed suit. Europe self harms in multiple ways, this is one of them
Not this crap again. There have been loads of attempts to extract it (particularly in Poland) and none of them got anywhere. The firms actually handed their licenses back.
Comments
As are you...
Why does a large country with so many talented songwriters and singers, continuously fail to take this competition seriously?
It should be really easy for the BBC to buy themselves a decent upbeat pop song, and recruit an established artist as the performer. They won’t all be hits, but they won’t keep coming last as they do at the moment.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-chagos-islands-maldives-b2927390.html
Couldn't that stunt have waited another week?
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s over arching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
Post 2008, essentially per capita, barely anything worth talking about ( and much of Europe at least pretty similar), hence we get the temptation of the extremes of “chuck out the foreigners” or it’s all the fault of “the rich”.
The present government’s overarching failure is its apparent total lack of any plans, I can detect, to meaningfully start to do anything about this ( deregulation? Better connectivity both digital or physical?) or have any narrative as to what they are trying to do other than month by month reactive sticking plasters.
If we want to win, or at least put on a stronger showing, then bringing back the "Song for Europe" selection process with a public vote is the way to do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_national_selection_for_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest
If they had voted Remain their lives would still have been shit and if they vote for Rejoin their lives will be shit.
Similarly vote for Corbyn then Boris then Starmer then Burnham then Farage then Polanski and their lives will still be shit.
Ditto similar patterns in similar countries.
On the other side of the coin there are many millions who have done well.
Is that because of Brexit ? Or Boris or Starmer ? Or Biden or Trump ? Or their own brilliance ?
Or is it mostly luck ?
With people sometimes having the skillset and effort to make the most of some (but by no means all) of the opportunities that come their way.
Trying to get the same growth without those boosts is much harder. Maybe smarter regulation could help, but I'd like to see why those regulations were put there first. Connectivity, sure. That'll be something we've failed to do for decades. Partly because of the upfront cost, but also because our provincial towns don't want to acknowledge their subservience to the nearest big city. And as for teleworking... don't even go there.
Whatever we do from here is going to need more effort. Are we up for that?
Contemporary UK artists with songs with over 1 billion listens on Spotify include:
- Ed Sheeran
- Dua Lipa
- Harry Styles
- Coldplay
- Lewis Capaldi
- Adele
- Sam Smith
- Arctic Monkeys
- Glass Animals
- Bastille
- Calvin Harris
- Clean Bandit
- The 1975
- Alt-J
- Olivia Dean
- Gorillaz
I'd be utterly amazed if you could convince any one of them to appear on Eurovision.
Even lower ranking (popularity-wise) artists with songs in the hundreds of millions would very likely reject the proposition.
And they're not wrong to. Our top performer in years (Sam Ryder) has his top song with a paltry 75 million listens. It's simply not worth the risk of being so publicly rejected.
A big criticism I’d have of the Welsh Assembly since 1999 just to be all local for a while, is it spends 99% of its time economically, basically working out ways to redistribute the money it gets from the UK, rather than actually thinking about using their powers to generate new wealth ( how about cutting income tax got entrepreneurs setting up in Wales and employ people????).
Eurovision should be a bit of fun. Same as Jeux sans Frontières. Same as any sport, when it comes down to it. None of matters.
The alleged vote-stuffing shows a country that's really not in a good place mentally.
For reasons that others have articulated, you’re got going to get an international A-list artist, which is a little against the spirit of the competition, but you should absolutely be encouraging the international A-list songwriters, of which the UK has many, to enter. There’s also plenty of established artists to consider, rather than taking on a complete unknown.
I didn't say he hasn't been to the constituency at all. At the start of the campaign they thought they were going to win.
But the 2022 contest was also an outlier in that the UK's immediate and obvious support for Ukraine bought us some good vibes in Europe. Normally UK acts, good or bad, get far less votes than they would if performed for another country. It's almost always the case that British artists competing under another flag do better than the UK entry - including this year, with Antigoni for Cyprus.
Because of both of these issues nobody with an established career is going to volunteer to enter, the upside is not worth the considerable risk of being humiliated.
Look who won this year. Bulgaria. Israel last year. Small countries win
The one exception is Italy but that's probably because there is less resentment of Italy as a powerful country - everyone loves Italy - and also coz they take it seriously and send good songs from the San Remo festival
But regardless, I cannot accept that the level of vitriol against Keir Starmer from all quarters is adequately explained by living standards continuing to stagnate in the less than 2 years since he was elected.
It'll be interesting how people feel about a PM with a more appealing persona (Burnham) if and when he gets in but the fundamentals remain the same. Which they will because they are fundamentals.
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
On the other hand, I suspect that the audience would be well down if any of those four weren't in the final. So I can see why they do it that way.
I am pretty sure my theory is correct. Imagine if the USA was allowed to enter. They would never ever win. Too much resentment, in different forms. The Big Five in Europe are resented (albeit not as much as the USA)
Oh.
Now Labour are in the process of throwing away the “no
psychodrama with us” USP, which is really baffling because if the economy does not pick up under Burnham/Streeting/Rayner/AN Other, they’re toast, as there’s no appeal of being the steady hand on the tiller anymore.
I don't hate Starmer, and was CLP chair till recently, but Burnham appears to have more of a sense of direction. So I'll postpone any departure till we see how if he makes it, and with what arguments.
This is so good
https://x.com/JamesAHogg2/status/2055938037687726458?s=20
Full time wouldn't pay enough.
As with Trump, the believers will excuse, or plain ignore an awful lot.
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
Yes, it's not a 'plan' that I'm looking for - wouldn't know what one even looks like - it's the feeling that a Labour government has a big reduction in inequality as it's number one domestic priority.
That's actually, deep down, why I vote Labour and give money to it. It's the issue I most care about. It really bugs me how people's life prospects are influenced more than anything else by their birth circumstances. I want to see tackling this injustice informing policy across the board.
One aim
One plan
It worked brilliantly.
The only drawback for the plotters is it benefitted Farage as the Tories elected an imbecile.
Amazingly part of the right wing media plan was to talk up Burnham as some sort of Northern Thorpe demi god.
The result, they have slain the target a couple of years early and created the beast who gobble the right wing up too.
What's your take on PM Burnham? Can he turn the polls?
The liberal left centrist dork Rejoiners are bizarre people. They are hankering for an EU that no longer exists, economically or politically
Economically the EU is languishing. It is falling ever further behind the USA when EMU was meant to achieve the opposite. It is also being overtaken by Asia. And it has almost zero claim to the new technologies that are gonna transform society (many of them invented and perfected by Europeans, ironically)
Politically, and partly as a result of the above, the EU is swinging to the hard right and possibly the far right. It is not the cosy social democratic club of yore. It will soon be very seriously right wing. And waaaaaay to the right of the British government as it stands
And yet Rejoiners seem wilfully blind to both these obvious and fundamental truths. It’s quite odd
A wonderful anti-cycling article in the Daily Telegraph about a cycling focused cafe in the Windsor Railway Station ex-booking hall. The claim is that new phalanxes of MAMILs are descending on it from West London for a special 10% discount, locals are complaining that they do not get it, and Windsor is suddenly overrun. "Two abreast gets in", as does "war on motorists".
Tensions are simmering, and Windsor is about to explode. The Blue Rinse army and the Basement Dwellers of Tunbridge Wells are out and shouting in the comments.
(Note: the cafe has existed since 2001, it has lots of its own cycle parking for safety, the discount has been in place for perhaps 2 decades, and locals DO get it.)
This entertainment may soon cease, as they must be approaching the bottom of the barrel for these articles.
Full article link:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/dcc8ea99ec762d21
And the rise of the Green Party is a right wing media plan?
Starmer methodically alienated the Left, the Right and the Middle. In his own party.
We made a complete hash of Brexiting and no doubt leaving the Euro would be completely fraught for anyone also.
You do make a drama out of everything. Everything is always so totally wonderful, or a complete disaster. Stuff happens. Just roll with it. Stop being a drama queen.
You should be thanking me. Maybe even paying me. If you DM me I’ll give you my bank details so you can donate
Starmer, like Johnson before him, has done this all on his own starting with people buying his clothes and freebies, then 16 plus u turns, then appointing Mandelson as US ambassador, sacking anyone and everyone when he was caught out, and not seeing the utter hypocrisy of his demands for Johnson to resign but not applying the same standards to himself
It is labour , and only labour, who are in their own civil war as the public look on with dismay
Will be interesting to see if European efforts on digital sovereignty change things.
Our Donor who art in Thailand
Harborne be thy name
thy crypto come
thy will be done
in parliament as it is in Clacton
Give us this day our daily wedge
And forgive us our libels
as we sue those who write against us
And lead us not into transparency
but deliver us to GB News
https://x.com/_SeanOGrady/status/2055738426704486763
Going on GDP by PPP, India is three times the size of Japan, economically. Do you believe that is true? Do you believe India has three times the economic heft of Japan? No, of course you don't, because it's not true. GDP by PPP also says that Russia is bigger and economically more powerful than the UK, France, Japan or Germany. Do you believe that? No, you don't believe that either
Ergo, the USA really is much richer and considerably bigger than the eurozone, and the euro has failed in its primary task
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/ce8p60nj9e9o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFo_Odn2bsc
Scottish Parliament election coverage 2026 (BBC):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPe13rjSwuY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COzKcceouGo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35WJ69jb-DA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifddMMGCZ7c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhbC5syQneA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTAdNt98yxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZedkTjQbWA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nQ5un7t_8Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt05I8JA_MY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ebzYbxhmro
Also, the difference is now becoming painfully obvious. I dunno if you've been to the USA recently but I've been several times in the last three years, and I have been all over, from DC to Portland, from Seattle to Nashville, from the richest states like California to the poorer like West Virginia
The relative wealth of America compared to the EU is striking, and a bit depressing, TBH
It sure doesn't today.
Why do you think someone produced the graph @Benpointer posted if it is nonsense?
PS Even taking the above into account as @kinabalu pointed out other factors have an effect, like what type of economy do you want. Are you willing to make scarifies for more social welfare? Do you have the benefit of natural mineral wealth?
Almost none of it is being extracted, because the EU is politically stupid. France banned fracking as early as 2011. Germany, Holland, the UK and others have all followed suit. Europe self harms in multiple ways, this is one of them
So far, constituents don’t seem to be bothered by Andy’s views on Brexit. Suggests to me Reform are onto a loser if they make this an issue.
We only have to look at the 3 companies the UK government bang on about being our big tech successess.
Deepmind, bought by Google early on, then Google have invested billions into them before they got any return.
Synthesia, been backed now with £200m of funding in the past 2-3 years to go from tiny 30 person outfit to 100s of employees, where did the money come from, US backers. I believe the Mark Cuban took a punt on them with some pretty big cheques very early on (when they couldn't get UK or EU money) and since then consistent US venture capital money every 6-12 months.
Wayve, they are trying to the be the UK Waymo, they really struggled to scale and get going, in the past year or so, "expanded" to the US, why, it will be to prove the tech to get US investment.
Which is the UK FinTech that the same, they were doing ok in Europe but struggling to get big investment, so management moved to the US, and it turboed charged them.
This is why the US ends up with this massive companies, they are willing to back them with serious capital to turn something like a Synthesia, which was a nice idea, AI avatar training videos, but needed huge amount of backing to scale this thing fast. Now they dominant the space with large numbers of the world biggest companies using them.